coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Budapest.
5.  In 2001 the applicant lodged an action in damages against the owner of a flat in which he lived with his family. He also sought the protection of possession with respect to the flat. The respondent lodged a counter-claim seeking the payment of usage fees for the flat.
6.  After having held several hearings and obtained the opinions of experts, on 14 November 2007 the Budapest Regional Court delivered its judgment, finding that the respondent was liable for the damages sought. It partly upheld the counter-claim of the respondent and ordered the applicant to pay usage fees for the flat.
7.  On 15 January 2008 the Budapest Court of Appeal, sitting as a second-instance court, increased the amount to be paid to the applicant.
8.  On 26 June 2008, the Supreme Court, acting as a review instance, decreased the amount to be paid to the applicant and increased the amount of usage fees to be paid to the respondent.
4.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Budapest.
5.  On 25 August 1997 the applicant’s neighbour brought an action against the applicant before the Pest Central District Court, requesting the court to establish that she had acquired ownership through adverse possession of the applicant’s plot of land. On 29 April 1998 the court held the first hearing.
6.  At the hearing of 5 October 1998 the applicant submitted a counter-claim for usage charges against the plaintiff. The court suspended the proceedings pending the land registry proceedings seeking the rectification of the land registry title plan.
7.  The next hearing took place on 28 October 2002. At the following hearing of 17 February 2003 the court again suspended the proceedings pending the termination of the same land registry proceedings before the district notary, which finally took place on 3 June 2003.
8.  The next court hearing was held on 26 September 2005. On 19 March 2008 the District Court gave a judgment. This was quashed on appeal on 29 May 2009 and the case was remitted to the first-instance court.
9.  In the resumed proceedings the District Court delivered its judgment on 12 December 2011, establishing that the plaintiff had not acquired ownership of part of the property and ordering her to pay usage charge to the applicant. On appeal, the Budapest Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance decision on 13 June 2012.
7.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Łódź.
8.  On 16 October 2007 the applicant was convicted by Sieradz District Court of extortion and sentenced to one year and six months imprisonment. On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against the first-instance judgment.
9.  On 23 January 2008 the Sieradz Regional Court dismissed the appeal. The judgment was sent to the applicant on 12 February 2008. On an unspecified date it was served on the applicant.
10.  The applicant requested the District Court to appoint a legal-aid lawyer with a view to filing a cassation appeal. On 12 March 2008 his legal‑aid application was received by the Sieradz Regional Court.
11.  On 18 March 2008 the Sieradz Regional Court refused to examine the applicant’s request for the appointment of a legal-aid lawyer. The court stated that the time-limit for lodging a cassation appeal had expired on 14 March 2008. The court also informed the applicant that the refusal was final and could not be appealed against.
4.  The applicants were born in 1962, 1962, 1967, 1969 and 1962 respectively and live in Budennovsk of the Stavropol Region.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
5.  Three applicants, Mr Sosnovskiy, Mrs Yeliseyeva and Mr Anpilov, are acting military servicemen. Two applicants, Mrs Zelenkevich and Mr Zelenkevich, retired from the armed forces in 1998 and 1999 respectively.
The applicants, all acting military servicemen at the material time, were entitled to a special monthly allowance due to combatants.
6.  On 25 April 2001 the applicants brought a civil action against their military unit requesting arrears of a special allowance.
7.  On 19 September 2001 the Pyatigorsk Garrison Military Court of the North-Caucasian Command granted the applicants’ claims in part and awarded different sums to be calculated by the defendant at the moment of actual payment on the basis of applicants’ wages multiplied by their personal coefficient, including but not limited to 19,301.19 and 69,822.48 Russian roubles (RUB) to Mr Zelenkevich; RUB 24,092.98 to Mrs Zelenkevich; RUB 170,765 to Mr Sosnovskiy; RUB 103,246.40 to Mrs Yeliseyeva; RUB 50,947 to Mr Anpilov and taking into account the inflation index in the region on the day of actual payment.
8.  The judgment was not appealed against and became final on 2 October 2001.
9.  On 22 October 2001 the court issued writs of execution. The applicants forwarded them to the local branch of the State treasury. On 14 December 2001 the writs were returned to the applicants unexecuted. The Ministry of Finance explained that the debtor had no available funds which could have been used for paying off the judgment debts. The applicants were advised to address the writs of execution to the Ministry of Defence, which they did later.
10.  On 11 April 2002 the President of the North-Caucasian Command Military Court brought a request for supervisory review of the judgment of 19 September 2001 and ordered to stay the enforcement proceedings.
11.  On 11 June 2002 the Presidium of the North-Caucasian Command Military Court quashed by way of a supervisory review the judgment of 19 September 2001 because of misapplication of material law by the first‑instance court and remitted a case for a fresh examination to the first‑instance court.
12.  On 21 November 2002 the Pyatigorsk Garrison Military Court dismissed the applicants’ claims in full.
13.  On 8 January 2003, upon the applicants’ appeal, the North‑Caucasian Command Military Court upheld the judgment of 21 November 2002.
4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Vuzenica.
5.  In 1994 the applicant began investing in commercial papers of the company Kompas Consulting d.d. via the company Kompas Maribor D.O.O. At the end of 1994 such trading was prohibited by the Securities Market Act however the applicant continued with the activity until 1996.
6.  In 1996 the applicant instituted enforcement proceedings against the company Kompas Maribor D.O.O. before the Maribor District Court seeking the payment of lost investments from Kompas Maribor for not informing her of the legislative amendments and continuing with the trading of commercial papers. She further complained before the domestic courts that as the company Kompas Consulting d.d. was bankrupt, she could only receive back a small proportion of her investments in bankruptcy proceedings.
7.  On 14 October 1996 the Maribor District Court issued a writ of execution.
8.  On 12 November 1996 following an objection the case was referred to contentious proceedings.
9.  On 4 February 1998 the Maribor District Court rendered a judgment rejecting the applicant’s request. She appealed.
10.  On 24 November 1998 the Maribor Higher Court upheld the appeal and remitted the case for re-examination. The second-instance court found that as the applicant had clarified that she was seeking compensation for damages only in the appeal phase, this constituted a new fact that the first-instance court would have to deliberate upon.
11.  On 24 October 2001 the Maribor District Court rendered a judgment. The court found that given the contractual arrangements the company Kompas Maribor D.O.O. could not be held responsible for the damages sustained. The applicant appealed.
12.  On 15 September 2004 the Maribor Higher Court upheld the first‑instance judgment and rejected the appeal. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law.
13.  On 25 January 2007 the Supreme Court rejected her appeal. She lodged a constitutional appeal.
14.  On 10 December 2007 the Constitutional Court rejected her appeal.
5.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Munich.
6.  On 17 March 1995 during an investigation undertaken by the tax authorities of Teleorman County, a contravention report was issued against the applicant, suspected of smuggling, and in particular, of having illegally imported into Romania agricultural equipment, which he subsequently used for illicit activities. The report indicated that the matter was to be brought before the prosecution.
7.  Upon the same investigation, the authorities summoned the applicant to the local tax office on 22 March 1995 to provide clarifications in respect of a fake invoice allegation. On 21 March 1995 the applicant presented himself at the tax office and tried to persuade two tax commissioners not to issue a new report against him by offering them money. On the same day, the tax authority issued a new report on the offences of smuggling and active bribery, both of which were brought before the Public Prosecutor’s Office with the County Court of Teleorman.
8.  On 21 March 1995 the applicant was remanded in detention.
9.  On 12 April 1995 he was released under supervision.
10.  On 11 August 1995 the applicant was brought to trial on charges of active bribery, smuggling and fraud-related offences in connection with the importation of agricultural equipment, the seizure of which was equally ordered.
11.  From 1996 to 2000 the court listed at least nine hearings at intervals ranging from five to nine months for failure to properly summon the applicant at his residences in Germany and in Romania. Throughout the trial at first instance, the applicant’s legal representative or, in his absence, a court-appointed lawyer, were present at most of the hearings.
12.  On 14 November 2000 based on contravention and in flagrante reports, customs papers, applicant’s statements and ten witness testimonies, the County Court of Teleorman found the applicant guilty of active bribery and smuggling and convicted him to a two-year deferred prison sentence. He was acquitted of charges of fraud-related offences. With regard to the offence of smuggling, the court applied a newly entered into force law (Law no. 141/1997 which amended the Law no. 30/1978, in force at the commission of the offence) and stated that the act of smuggling was incriminated in both laws, but the new one was more favourable in respect of penalty provisions. The seizure of the agricultural equipment was maintained in court.
13.  On appeal, the Bucharest Court of Appeal listed a total of seven hearings of which four were adjourned in the attendance of documents and information from the Customs Office of Teleorman. Both the applicant and his legal representative were present at all court hearings.
14.  On 20 December 2001 the court rejected the appeal and upheld the lower court’s judgment. The applicant appealed on points of law.
15.  On 11 June 2003 the High Court of Cassation and Justice (the former Supreme Court of Justice) convicted the applicant to a two-year deferred prison sentence for smuggling charges. With regard to the active bribery charges, he was acquitted as the criminal liability had become time-barred. The judgment became final.
5.  The applicant is a non-governmental organisation set up in 2003 and based in Belgrade. It monitors the implementation of transitional laws with a view to ensuring respect for human rights, democracy and the rule of law.
6.  On 31 October 2005 the applicant requested the intelligence agency of Serbia (Bezbednosno-informativna agencija) to inform it how many people had been subjected to electronic surveillance by that agency in 2005.
7.  On 4 November 2005 the agency refused the request, relying thereby on section 9(5) of the Freedom of Information Act 2004.
8.  On 17 November 2005 the applicant complained to the Information Commissioner (Poverenik za informacije od javnog značaja i zaštitu podataka о ličnosti – “the Commissioner”), a domestic body set up under the Freedom of Information Act 2004 to ensure the observance of that Act.
9.  On 22 December 2005 the Commissioner found that the intelligence agency had breached the law and ordered that the information requested be made available to the applicant within three days. The agency appealed, but on 19 April 2006 the Supreme Court of Serbia held that it lacked standing and dismissed its appeal.
10.  On 23 September 2008 the intelligence agency notified the applicant that it did not hold the information requested.
4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Rožňava.
5.  On 19 February 2003 an individual (“the claimant”) filed a petition with a judicial enforcement officer (“JEO”) for the enforcement of the equivalent of some 1,315 euros (EUR) worth of an adjudicated claim against the applicant.
6.  On 26 February 2003 the JEO requested authorisation to carry out the enforcement under file no. Ex 97/2003. The authorisation was granted by the Spišská Nová Ves District Court (“the Enforcement Court”) on 12 March 2003 under the file no. 1Er 279/03.
7.  On 17 March 2003 the JEO issued a notice of enforcement (upovedomenie o začatí exekúcie), by which he notified the applicant that enforcement proceedings had commenced against him. The notice specified that amounts to be enforced comprised the above-mentioned principal amount, the equivalents of some EUR 20 in court fees, EUR 250 in the JEO’s remuneration and EUR 50 in the JEO’s expenses.
8.  On 25 April 2003 the applicant challenged the notice of enforcement by way of a protest (námietky) to the Enforcement Court arguing that the principal amount had already been paid and disputing the claim for compensation in respect of the JEO’s remuneration and expenses.
9.  On 30 April 2003 the claimant filed his observations in reply to the applicant’s protest and, on 5 May 2003, the JEO transmitted these observations to the Enforcement Court for determination of the protest.
10.  On 14 June 2006 the Enforcement Court allowed the protest in part which concerned the principal amount and dismissed its remainder. That decision became final and binding on 8 July 2006, following which – on 21 July 2006 – the Enforcement Court discontinued the enforcement proceedings in so far as the principal amount was concerned. The latter decision became final and binding on 26 July 2006.
11.  On 7 September 2006 the applicant lodged a petition that the remainder of the enforcement be discontinued too, which the Enforcement Court dismissed on 13 October 2006 by a decision that became final and binding on 28 November 2006.
12.  On 27 December 2011, upon ultimate termination of the outstanding part of the enforcement proceedings, the JEO returned the authorisation deed to the Enforcement Court.
13.  On 4 July 2006 the applicant filed a complaint under Article 127 of the Constitution to the Constitutional Court. Relying on Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution, he contended that the length of the enforcement proceedings against him had been excessive.
14.  On 15 March 2007 the Constitutional Court declared the complaint inadmissible on the ground that, prior to his constitutional complaint, the applicant had failed to exhaust ordinary remedies, in particular the complaint to the President of the Enforcement Court.
The Constitutional Court’s decision was served on the applicant on 23 April 2007.
5.  The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Szolnok. When introducing the application, he was detained at Állampuszta Prison.
6.  On 19 September 2006 the applicant was detained on charges of robbery and other offences. On 28 October 2009 he was finally convicted and sentenced to six years and eight months’ imprisonment.
7.  Between 19 September 2006 and 23 October 2008 he was held in pre-trial detention at Szolnok Prison (Jász-Nagykun-Szolnok Megyei Büntetés-végrehajtási Intézet) in cells with ground surfaces ranging from 6.33 to 7.25 m2 for four inmates (that is, approximately 1.7 m2 per person on average).
The applicant stated that he could leave the cell for only one hour daily and submitted corroborating statements to that effect from two fellow inmates.
The Government submitted that, during almost one year and nine months out of this period, the applicant was allowed to spend three hours daily outside his cell and another hour outdoors.
Under section 239(2) of Decree no. 6/1996. (VII.12.) IM of the Minister of Justice, it is at the prison governor’s discretion whether or not to keep open during the day the doors of cells accommodating those in pre-trial detention.
8.  After a short stay at Tököl Prison Hospital, the applicant was moved to Állampuszta Prison. Between 3 November 2008 and 23 July 2009 he was detained in cells whose ground surfaces were 24 m2 for ten inmates (according to the applicant; that is, 2.4 m2 per person) or 30.24 m2 for fourteen inmates (according to the Government; that is, 2.16 m2 per person). The inmates were free to leave their cells during the day.
9.  Between 24 July and 21 December 2009 the applicant was held at Tiszalök Prison in good conditions.
10.  Between 21 December 2009 and 10 September 2010 he was held at Budapest Prison (Budapesti Fegyház és Börtön) in a 25 m2 cell for ten inmates (that is, 2.5 m2 per person). He could freely move within the block during the day.
11.  After a short stay at Fővárosi Büntetés-végrehajtási Intézet, the applicant was returned to Állampuszta Prison on 20 September 2010, where he has stayed ever since.
From 1 October 2010 on, he has been accommodated in a 30.24 m2 cell with ten other inmates (that is, 2.75 m2 per person). He can move around freely in the block during the day.
4.  The applicants are mother and son. They were born in 1959 and 1994, respectively, and live in Primskovo.
5.  On 27 October 1998 the mother (hereinafter referred to as “the applicant”) instituted a labour dispute against her former employer before the Ljubljana Labour and Social Court seeking the payment of wages.
6.  Between 19 June 2002 and 12 July 2002 the court held two hearings. A hearing scheduled for 18 October 2002 was postponed on the request of the applicant. She requested a postponement for a period of six months.
7.  On 30 July 2004 the applicant received a notice for a hearing scheduled on 14 September 2004.
8.  On 14 September 2004 the court held a hearing and issued a decision on suspension of proceedings, because both parties failed to attend. The court found that in the absence of a request for a hearing or any other procedural step within four months the proceedings would be terminated.
9.  On 25 October 2005 the court held a hearing. It appears that there was either a request for a hearing or a submission lodged so the proceedings could continue.
10.  On 28 March 2006 the court held a hearing and delivered a judgment, rejecting the applicant’s request. She appealed.
11.  On 21 September 2006 the Higher Labour and Social Court rejected the appeal. She lodged an appeal on points of law.
12.  On 9 January 2007 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal.
4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Varna.
5.  On 30 September 2005, relying on section 76 § 2 of the Bulgarian Identity Papers Act of 1998, the Varna Regional Police Directorate (“the VRPD”) issued an order refusing to issue the applicant with an international passport and ordering that his existing passport be seized. The order was issued on the grounds that the applicant had been previously convicted and the statutory period for legal rehabilitation had not yet expired.
6.  At the time when the order was issued, the applicant was apparently living in Germany. He travelled to Bulgaria in early April 2006 to renew his identity papers. When he applied for his papers on 25 April 2006, the authorities informed him of the order of 30 September 2005 and refused to issue a new passport to him.
7.  The applicant appealed against the order arguing that it contained no reasons to justify the imposition of the ban.
8.  In a judgment of 2 August 2006 the Varna Regional Court quashed the order and remitted the case to the VRPD. The court established that the applicant had been released in November 2003 after serving a two-year prison sentence. It then observed that the appropriateness of the imposed administrative measure was not subject to judicial control. However, the court found that the order was deficient as the relevant circumstances had not been examined. In particular, the VRPD had not commented on the applicant’s numerous trips from and back to Bulgaria following his release, on his Greek citizenship and on his permanent residence permit and address in Germany. All of those factors could have pointed against the imposition of the ban. The Varna Regional Court concluded that the order was not sufficiently reasoned.
9.  Upon appeal, in a final judgment of 22 February 2007, the Supreme Administrative Court (“the SAC”) set aside the lower court’s judgment and confirmed the order. The SAC held that the order was reasoned in so far as it made a reference to the statutory provisions on the basis of which it had been issued. It also held that the personal circumstances of the applicant should not have been examined by the lower court as the VRPD’s discretion in issuing the order was not subject to judicial control.
10.  On 2 May 2007 the applicant requested that the travel ban be lifted because he had been rehabilitated. The VRPD lifted the ban in an order of 11 May 2007 on the grounds of the applicant’s rehabilitation.
5.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Istanbul.
6.  On 30 March 2005 the applicant, who is a lawyer, got married and took her husband’s surname pursuant to Article 187 of the Turkish Civil Code. She, however, kept her maiden name in front of her husband’s surname as provided for by the same provision.
7.  On 9 May 2007 the applicant brought proceedings before the Şişli Court of First Instance for permission to use only her maiden name, “Tuncer”.
8.  On 18 July 2007 the Şişli Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant’s request on the ground that, under Article 187 of the Turkish Civil Code, married women had to bear their husband’s name throughout their marriage and were not entitled to use their maiden name alone.
9.  The applicant appealed. On 22 November 2007 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment.